Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denicos Allen

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus demonstrated that notability is established, with a general clear view that GRIDIRON also applies to CFL. Disputes on that issue should take place at the appropriate location. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Denicos Allen

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence he ever played in an actual main season NFL game. Not enough sources to show notability either. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I'm seeing lots of fan-type blog entries but nothing stands out as an independent third party reliable source. It's possible he could be notable from his college career, but I'm not finding any evidence of that. I admit there is a lot of "noise" in the search engines, so if good sources are presented I'd certainly consider them.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Failure of WP:BEFORE. WP:NGRIDIRON is not limited to the NFL, but also extends to the Canadian Football League (CFL). Allen played in the CFL during the 2015 season, appearing in three games, two as a starter, registering 17 tackles. See here, here and here. Article is in poor shape, but that's cause for improvement rather than deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Playing pro in the CFL meets notability requirements so I change to Keep. Thanks for the find!--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article does need some improvement, yes, but playing the Canadian Football League also fully passes WP:GRIDIRON. To be fair to the nominator, the article didn't really say anything about his CFL career at the time of nomination — it included CFL teams in the infobox, but didn't mention anything about them in the body text, so it would be entirely possible for an editor who didn't recognize the team names to miss the money shot. But the article has now been expanded, so his notability is now properly covered off. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Allen passes WP:NGRIDIRON as a former player in the CFL. Total failure of WP:BEFORE by the nominator. Yet another bad sports-related AfD nomination by this particular user. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it fooled me too! It may be worthwhile to beef up WP:BEFORE with suggested searches.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kudos to Cbl62's research. I had looked in clfapedia.com and found his name but there was no indication he had played in a regular season game. FWIW, my research shows he also appeared in 4 pre-season games for Tampa Bay in 2014 (I know that it doesn't help his notability). He meets WP:NGRIDIRON. Papaursa (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: Given the evidence presented and unanimity of opinion to keep, would you consider withdrawing the nom so that this can be closed early? Cbl62 (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No Iam not going to withdraw the nominsation. Just because the pro-football cabal wants to keep does not show this is a uniniomous view. Canadian football is not so big all players should have default notability and there is not enough coverage to justify this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Question what is an "uniniomous view"? Did you mean "unanimous?"--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I would avoid referring to editors who disagree with you based on Wikipedia's guidelines as a "cabal". Nonetheless, this is getting close to the point where an early snow keep could be appropriate, regardless of whether the nomination is withdrawn. Rlendog (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GRIDIRON. Rlendog (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.